Interrupted dribble
 

Tonight BV: A1 pushes the ball up the court in transition. He pulls up and loses control. As he chases the ball down, it touches B1's foot. A1 grabs the ball in both hands, then starts another dribble. Violation?

I think you are taking liberties with the well defined term 'interrupted dribble'. A more apropos description for your sitch is 'fumble' followed by a touch by an opponent. I would not have a violation here even if the touch were by a teammate of the former dribbler. The only occasion for a violation here is if B1's contact with the ball were deemed intentional.
Don't ask me why, I'm JUSTACOACH:p:p, but I'll take a stab. See 9-5-3...Pg 55
RULE 9 SECTION 5 ILLEGAL DRIBBLE
A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended,
unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART.1 . . . A try for field goal.
ART. 2 . . . A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by,
another player.

Not at all. He lost control of the dribble.

It matters not how we define his obvious loss of control, the intervening touch by another player eliminates the possible call for illegal dribble, or travel for that matter. Only potential violation, as I mentioned above, is kicked ball, if you deem intentional contact w/ B player's foot.
I can't imagine why you come with this pedestrian a query. Is it possible you are invested in some of your legendary over parsing of a mundane sitch?

Here's the deal. This happened tonight. After receiving a pass over the top of a press, A1 lost control of the dribble, retrieved the ball in both hands, and started another dribble. I was trail, quite a way behind the play. I did not actually see the ball touch the foot, but Coach A helped me. "He kicked it!" I'm fairly certain that it was not an actual kick, nor was the coach asking for one, but rather was saying that this gave A1 the right to start another dribble. I don't see that it does. If contact by B1 had caused the loss of control, yes, it ends the dribble. But contact was lost before the contact, (I think) so I see this play as a violation. Had I seen contact with the foot, what would I have done? Can't say. But in hindsight, I think I accidentally made the right call.

Now that you have provided the denoument, which does not make mention of any ball contact by another player, I concur and support your surmise of illegal dribble violation.
However..
If the eye-in-the-sky shows the ball accidentally contacting another player, as declared in the OP, I think you got some 'splaining to do...

Why?

No as per NFHS rule 9-5-3. It's a fumble touched or touched by another player...no matter how much over-thinking you might want to inject into it. :)

Whatever it was, it definitely was not a fumble.

So you're saying that an interrupted dribble that hits a defender's foot doesn't grant the previous dribbler a new dribble, but a fumble that hits such a foot does?

I didn't say that, I asked the question. If an interrupted dribble is touched by an opponent, does that end the dribble? I see no rule which says it does.

You did say that; at least that's how I read this post:

Unless you're also saying a fumble would give you the same ruling as your post above.

I Do ...
 

NFHS 9-5: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART. 1 A try for field goal.
ART. 2 A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

Nobody mentioned a fumble until JR. There definitely was not a fumble. Player had a dribble, then lost control resulting in an interrupted dribble. Ball then touched/was touched by the defender. Dribbler then picked the ball up with both hands. Can he legally start a new dribble after this sequence? I don't see how, but I entertain other opinions.

Who cares?

Read case book play 4.15.4SitE. That says the defensive touch ended the dribble. In that case, what difference does it make what type of dribble it ended... a regular ol' dribble or an interrupted dribble?

Rules rulz!

No, Casebook Interpretations Rule ...
 

4.15.4 SITUATION E: While A1 is dribbling in A’s backcourt, the ball legally
touches B1’s leg, causing it to bounce away from A1. A1 quickly recovers the ball
with two hands and then starts another dribble. RULING: Legal. The touch by B1
ended the original dribble and A1 could then recover and dribble again. However,
the touch by B1 did not end team control and the 10-second backcourt count
continues. (9-5-2)

The player had control and then lost it without any intervening cause. If that's not a fumble, what is? What's your definition of a fumble?

Miracle In The Meadowlands ...
 

This:

http://www.youtube.com/v/CzUHvg6QbaU...s=1&autoplay=1

You can't fumble a dribble.

4-15-4d: The dribble ends when the ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control.

In my play, the touch did not cause the loss of control. This rule has already been rewritten once recently, seemingly as a result of discussion here. Perhaps another editorial revision will be forthcoming.

I'm basing my decision on the fact they revised the portion of the rule already. I can't imagine they want this treated differently than a fumble where the same thing happens.

I tend to agree.

Aretha-Just a lil respect...
 

FWIW, I did, in post #2 of this thread, and provided a well reasoned refutation to your improper call and your improper characterization of this action as 'interrupted dribble'.

Yes as per NFHS case book play 4.15.4SitE. It's the exact same play. You had an interrupted dribble that touched an opponent. That ended the interrupted dribble. So the dribbler could recover and dribble again.

The case play just says "dribble". It didn't say that it only applies to one certain specific type of dribble though. Go with what you got. And what you got is sureashell good enough imo.

Rules rulz!

The key to the case play is that the touch caused the loss of control, which is not what happened in my play. Is it the intent that the touch would still end the dribble? Probably Is it written that way? No

A horse is a horse, of course of course....

And so is a dribble, of course of course.

And use what you got (the case play cited) and don't worry your pretty l'il head any further 'bout it. :D

Now shoo, shoo....

Your time could be more constructively used picketing anyone who has ever called a blarge.

I don't actually know anyone who has called one.

Me. If I see you picketing outside my house, I'll sic Fang, my pet pit-bichon frise on ya. :eek:

I haven't, but I know several who have.

Does anyone really know you?

Fang do.

Hmmmmm....a Chinese pet pit-bichon frise.

I should build a fence around 'em? Good idea.

http://www.cedarfencesiding.com/imag...et%20fence.jpg